Hang on, I thought Barrett's foray into writing was being laughed at by most on here? Now we're to assume he was known at the Saddle as the resident writer who'd know what to do with a potentially important document?

So, on one hand, Barrett is a nitwit who couldn't construct a sentence or have anything to do with a diary, but on the other hand, he's regarded enough in literature by his mates to be deemed the go-to-guy when you find an interesting bit of literature?

I never said it was impossible, I said it was improbable. I gave some valid reasons for finding it improbable, and I'm yet to see anyone explain those with a reasonable answer that doesn't consist of imaginative explanations such as "Rigby finds diary, Rigby gives diary to mate, mate contacts random university, then decides to contact the local booze-hound who would know what to do with a book such as that".

That's like me saying it's not impossible that Barrett wrote it, constructed a plan with his electrician mate who worked for a company that had previously worked at the house and then went at it.

In fact, considering we're now having Barrett be associated with an electrician, and seeing as the company had worked at the house in '89, then why is it impossible for the diary to have been concocted as far back as then, and set aside for a perfect time to launch it into the public eye?

This is the difference between probable and improbable.

Barrett wouldn't have had to have been Tolstoy to impress a few blokes in the pub by telling them that he'd done some writing and even had something published.

Didn't the university confirm the visit?

Come on Mike, sitting on the diary for the right time for a public launch. Did they have 'focus groups' and do a bit of 'brainstorming.' These are just ordinary blokes. 'If' they found an old book, they might think that it could be worth a few quid. What would they do? Obviously involve someone who, for whatever spurious reason, they think might know a bit about books. What's improbable about that?

You're also aware that scientific analysis of the Mussilini diary gave the impression of an old document, too, right?
So what's the point of scientific evidence if we are just going to say it's the result of trickery if it doesn't suit our point? Why did Harris and Warren bother?

No, because people have lied about the provenance doesn't mean it's a forgery, but what you should be wondering is why a supposedly real document, genuinely found, would cause everyone around it to lie so utterly hopelessly and repeatedly. Think of all of the genuine finds out there, and ask yourself if they, too, were surrounded by dodgy stories...

Every case is individual. I've mentioned some of the reasons as does Smith.

The scientific evidence for the watch says old, because it's an old watch. The funny thing being dismissed is that the people set with the task of cleaning said watch saw no initials on it at all when it was in their shop...

No. The expert said that the scratches were old and he couldn't see how they could be faked.

People find it easy to dismiss the fact that the writer mentions a non-existent pub with a distinct and giveaway spelling, yet they can't dismiss other things as easily.
I accept your research, but is it impossible that Maybrick could have called it The Poste House? Of course it isn't. Every single phrase used or nickname employed haven't all been recorded for posterity. Perhaps it's what his dad called it? Perhaps only a handful of people called it that? It's not impossible so it can't be a disproof.

If you steal something, why take it to a university who would undoubtedly ask you were you got it from? Does that make sense?

Yup. I imagine that hey just wanted to know if it was old.

If you steal something, why offer it to a publisher in London?

Don't know?

We really must use our common sense on this one.

I try not to get carried away by certainty Mike when doubts exist on both sides.

The only real reason, as I see it, seems to be the McNeil ion-migration test, whose sensitivity was demonstrated to be significantly compromised when the test was applied to the Mormon "Salamander" letters. The test was developed against a small sample of documents spanning several centuries, but as yet I have not seen any evidence of how accurate it might be when confronted by papers of different composition produced in the same century.

The analysis is, up to now, so unreliably vague re: for and against, that I don't really pay much attention to it. We have so many conflicting opinions on whether the ink is old, or whether it could be more modern in origin.

Barrett wouldn't have had to have been Tolstoy to impress a few blokes in the pub by telling them that he'd done some writing and even had something published.

Here's the thing, though, in this instance you're giving Barrett an association with one or more of the electricians, something he's not supposed to have, and you're giving him credibility as a man who knows his literature enough to cause someone who had felt the document important enough to warrant a trip to the university to then seek Barrett out and hand said important document over to him, all based on the fact that Barrett was interested in writing.

This scenario has Barrett being well-known enough by one of the electricians that he's sought out for his interests and offered a potentially important document.

So, if we're allowing for an association between Barrett and the electricians, why are we disallowing the notion of a concocted plan between them to give a hoaxed diary a believable provenance?

If we can go to the trouble to think up ways in which these men handed the diary to Barrett, of all people, and ignore an odd timeline, then why not go the full distance and give reasons for how they had planned this with Barrett all along? This is what I'm talking about when I say we're making up details to support our views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes

Didn't the university confirm the visit?

I don't know whether any university confirmed anything, because there's literally been no mention of what university this was, who saw the document, if it was the diary or not, and everything in between.

We're being told that this vague university confirmed that some men had brought a document, now, ignoring the fact that this kind of information wouldn't generally be recorded by anyone for any reason (and by that, I mean how would this university be able to tell anyone that some men had brought in a document on a certain day? Was it recorded in some kind of log and kept for a number of years after? Doubtful) we simply do not know who brought what to whom, and who viewed what, what was said, what the document actually was, or anything else remotely helpful. So when people say the university confirmed this, I have to ask did they? Says who?

If I wanted to ring the university tomorrow, and tell them I'd found something interesting, I'd have to first know which university dept to actually call, seeing as there's so many of them, in various buildings across the city, all of them dealing in completely different things, and I'd have to laboriously convince them that I wasn't a nutter, then they'd have to find a relevant member of said university who was interested and available enough to entertain these men. This isn't like in a movie, where a person finds an exotic treasure and contacts the university to speak to a professor, but this is what we're being told happened, yet no details can be offered. To me, it sounds like bollocks, and the fact that nobody can even name the university in question, despite there supposedly being a record of this meeting, is frankly laughable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes

Come on Mike, sitting on the diary for the right time for a public launch. Did they have 'focus groups' and do a bit of 'brainstorming.' These are just ordinary blokes. 'If' they found an old book, they might think that it could be worth a few quid. What would they do? Obviously involve someone who, for whatever spurious reason, they think might know a bit about books. What's improbable about that?

I don't understand this post, because you're basically disallowing for a prior plan between these men based on the fact that they were "average blokes" and yet you're allowing for a relationship between Barrett and the electricians, an inconsistent timeline and very vague meetings with random university staff.

If they found an old book and were after a few quid, again, why take it to a university? Do you not at all think that they'd be asked on where they found it? So, on the one hand, they stole it, took it to a university and then put it up for a publisher, all to make money, yet we can ignore the many lies because they may have been worried about stealing? Are we having our cake and eating it, then?

It can't be both. If you're stealing a book in order to make money, then it'd be foolish to show anyone at a university who may well notify the police. It'd also be foolish to contact a publisher. Anyone legitimate would undoubtedly ask questions about where the diary came from, forcing you to either lie, or admit to taking it without consent.

You can't simply bat away the many lies by saying they may have been worried about stealing, and at the same time find it totally plausible that they'd take it to a university and then try to sell it.

The so-called evidence being offered that this scenario is a true one is less than impressive.

So what's the point of scientific evidence if we are just going to say it's the result of trickery if it doesn't suit our point? Why did Harris and Warren bother?

This is an odd question that you've asked before, you're essentially asking me what the point of scientific evidence is...which I truly hope you do not mean.

Scientific evidence is something we can verify and test, showing repetition. Unless you can show me supportable data that the diary is without doubt proven to be a genuine document, written in the Victorian times, then you've basically only got opinion, and there are also opinions that suggest it is perfectly capable of being more recent.

Me saying it could easily be the result of trickery is 100% fact, because we know that this has already been the case in other diary hoaxes. If you can show me that this is different and that there's solid evidence to back that up, let me know, but I shan't be holding my breath.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes

Every case is individual. I've mentioned some of the reasons as does Smith.

The reasons you offered were pretty weak, though, Herlock. You argue that they were worried about the fact that they'd stolen the diary, and yet you're also claiming that it makes sense that they took it to a university to be looked at, and then passed it to Barrett to be passed to a publisher. People who steal things generally go about selling them to other unscrupulous people, making sure that a chain cannot be led back to them, they don't get legitimate people to look at their stolen goods and then try to have them foisted into the public eye.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes

No. The expert said that the scratches were old and he couldn't see how they could be faked.

Actually, he hints that they could be faked, IIRC, but says it'd be difficult for any average person, which is a funny reminder of Yanos Prohaska, the famed FX man who claimed that a convincing Bigfoot suit would be difficult to make, and then goes on to explain how to do it, by individually gluing the hairs on, lol. This also, once again, totally ignores the fact that the person cleaning said watch commented that no markings were seen when they handled it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes

I accept your research, but is it impossible that Maybrick could have called it The Poste House? Of course it isn't. Every single phrase used or nickname employed haven't all been recorded for posterity. Perhaps it's what his dad called it? Perhaps only a handful of people called it that? It's not impossible so it can't be a disproof.

Could've called what the Poste house? Again, this is another instance where you're totally willing to bend things to allow for this to be genuine. Herlock, there was no pub known as the Poste house, lol. This has been mentioned so many times that I find it truly silly that it's still being given credence. Why on earth would he call it the "Poste house" with an "e?" There is quite literally one pub in this city that bears that name with that distinct spelling, and in 1888, it wasn't known by that name.

You earlier claimed that a scenario with Barrett and the electricians concocting a hoax was highly unlikely, yet you're now telling me it wasn't impossible that Maybrick was coincidentally naming a pub, complete with unique spelling, that wouldn't come to be for many years. There is literally no evidence for any other pub by that name, but we're being asked to allow it, what's one more coincidence in this mess of coincidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes

I try not to get carried away by certainty Mike when doubts exist on both sides.

So why allow coincidence to carry you away by giving credence to them, especially when it's one coincidence after another?

If we're going to ignore probability to focus on possibility, then it's not entirely impossible that Barrett wrote the diary, which, like I said, leads us nowhere.

If we're going to base this on what is possible, then we're disregarding reasoning, probability and likelihood, in favour of what could be possible, which is anything, just short of an alien writing the diary and beaming it into Battlecrease house via a laser canon.

Not forgetting, "Rigby finds potentially important document and decides to get shot of it right away".

Yes, this is a very important point. Why would he just give it to Barrett? And if Barrett somehow stole the diary, or obtained it by trickery, why was he crazy enough to visit one of the electricians and accuse him of lying in respect of his claim that it was taken from Battlecrease?

Just out of interest Mike, what would you consider 'a valid reason?' Whatever doubts everyone has about the 'timeline' or anything else it's still 'proven' that electricians were working in Maybrick's room on the day Mike Barrett phoned about the diary. It's transparently not impossible that the diary 'could' have got to Barrett on that day. And the scientific tests all appear to favour an older date for the diary. Again Mr Devil's advocate here

By the way chaps I'm in London at the moment. Just been on a 'ripper' walk. They don't even bother going to Goulston Street anymore and Mitre Square is almost unrecognisable! The cobbles are gone and there's bloody grass in the middle!!

I think some people are having a real problem with basic statistics. The presence of the phrase "one off" has effectively killed the diary, it's as dead as the dodo, and for anyone still struggling with basic mathematical concepts here's why.

The first recorded instance of the phrase being used in the English language, and then only in an engineering context-an industry, incidentally, that Maybrick had no connection to-, was in 1934, almost half a century after the diary was purportedly written: see OED. It would be decades later before the phrase entered everyday usage.

Now, of it's to be argued that the phrase could have originated earlier then we have to consider the statistical chances of the person being Maybrick. Thus, between 1888 and 1934 there must have been over a hundred million people who were alive in capable of writing in English, anyone of whom could have originated the phrase. But against odds of several million to one against that person happens to Maybrick, in a diary of disputed provenance!

In fact, the odds are even greater, because you then have to explain why there are no other recorded examples between, say, 1888 and 1934.

Could've called what the Poste house? Again, this is another instance where you're totally willing to bend things to allow for this to be genuine. Herlock, there was no pub known as the Poste house, lol. This has been mentioned so many times that I find it truly silly that it's still being given credence. Why on earth would he call it the "Poste house" with an "e?" There is quite literally one pub in this city that bears that name with that distinct spelling, and in 1888, it wasn't known by that name.

Many a Public House in the late 1800's was referred to by locals as the 'Post House', as prior to the setting up of the Royal mail many of them acted as collection and drop off points for a basic postal system.
I believe the author of the 'diary' also errs on four occasions in his use of unnecessary letters 'e'. Quite simply a writers error. I can never see the big deal over this Post/e House malarkey.

__________________
‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes